RFI questions_responses.pdf

Paragraph

Questions / Comments Government Response

In the prior RFI related to this PWS, it appeared the government was considering an ID/IQ structure, as evidenced by the inclusion of draft PWSs for both DC3 and AFOSI. Given that the AFOSI PWS was subsequently removed, can the government confirm whether the acquisition strategy has shifted away from an ID/IQ approach—or if an ID/IQ vehicle is still under consideration?

This contract effort is for the DC3 PWS only and we are currently in the acquistion planning phase.

Can the government provide an anticipated release date for the RFP associated with this effort?

The Government does not currently have a anticipated release date.

Does the government intend to release a draft of the full RFP, including Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Criteria)?

The Government is in the acquisition planning phase.

Does the government intend to release this requirement as a small business set-aside?

The competitive opportunity has not yet been determined.

Has the government identified a specific contract vehicle for the release of this RFP?

The vehicle type has not yet been determined. We are only conducting Market Research.

6.1.2

Can the government confirm the anticipated primary place of performance for this requirement, and whether remote work will be authorized—either in full or in part?

Place of performance is Linthicum Heights, Maryland. Selected partner should expect to be on-site 3-5 days a week. Considering the operations up to a TS level, many performance activities will not easily be accomplished remotely from a residential location.

6.1.2

The PWS notes that “contractor employees who are permanently remote will establish standard operating practices aligned with their supported Customer element.” To support effective workforce planning and recruiting, can the government clarify the expected ratio of on-site to remote personnel for the positions listed? Additionally, are there any geographic limitations or location-based restrictions for remote employees (e.g., CONUS-only, time zone alignment, or clearance processing constraints)?

Thank you for highlighting that error - section 6.1.2 should not mention "contractor employees who are permanently remote" as the nature of this classified work will require significant on-site support, roughly 3-5 days per week.

Considering the on-site expectations, individuals should have means to be on-site during the week, whereas a OCONUS individual, or an individual stateside in a different time-zone may not be as easily responsive to routine onsite activity.

Can the government confirm the anticipated contract type for this requirement (e.g., Firm-Fixed Price, Time-and-Materials, or Cost- Reimbursement)?

The Government is in the acquisition planning phase.

2.9.1

The PWS specifies a maximum employee turnover rate of 10%. Can the government clarify whether the 10% turnover rate is calculated on an annual basis, or over a different period of performance?

Annual rate of turnover.

2.9.1

Considering the extended timelines often required to obtain TS/SCI clearances, can the government clarify its expectations if a fully cleared and qualified candidate cannot be placed within the specified 15-business-day vacancy window?

If the individual is fully cleared and qualified awaiting government transfer of clearance, then the 15 day vacancy does not apply. However, if the individual does not eventually clear for issues not suitable for government clearance - then the 15 day vacancy is a factor.

Individuals should have a clearance that is assignable to DC3. Individuals awaiting a TS clearance will not be permitted Entry on Duty, and as such a cost to the government, due to an inability to perform all duties.

2.9.1

Is the government considering the use of any incentives or disincentives to ensure the contractor maintains a turnover rate below the 10% threshold specified in the PWS?

No incentives have been considered at this time as the Government is in the acquisition planning phase.

2.9.1

Is the disincentive associated with leaving a position vacant beyond 15 business days fixed, or is the government open to revisiting this threshold?

This is a fixed timeline.

2.1.2 What specific DoD or AF engineering standards (e.g. MIL-STD, DoDAF, DoDI 5000.84/AoA guidelines) should our analyses and feasibility studies conform to?

The Government is in the acquisition planning phase.

2.1.2 Are there existing templates or model solutions (e.g. AF technical service management models) that DC3 expects us to leverage?

No existing templates or models, but if you have innovative models to create efficiency and not reduce creativity, we are open to leveraging them.

2.1.2 Could you clarify the review and approval process for our analyses (e.g.

analysis of alternatives, feasibility studies)?

Government team members will be in the review and approval process. Each activity likely has its unique characteristics which will be coordinated between the government rep and the contractor team lead.

2.1.2 Since DC3 is an FOA, which stakeholders (e.g. AF program offices, AF/IG, Mission Partners) will be involved in validating those deliverables?

Deliverables are validated locally at DC3.

2.1.2 Is there existing architecture or system documentation (for DC3 or AF cyber systems) we can use as a baseline?

Yes

2.1.2 How will the contractor be expected to coordinate with DC3 and external entities during the “installation phase” and technical reviews (e.g. AF Form 1067 modification proposals)? Are there established change boards or governance bodies we will interact with?

The contractor always has a local government rep as an interface.

RFI: AFNCR Network Infrastructure Support Engineering & SETA for DC3

2.1.2 Are we expected to use specific DoD/AF tools or environments (e.g., Office 365, AF sensors, Big data platform) for system design and analysis tasks?

Can we propose commercial tools if they meet DoD security requirements?

Yes DoD/AF tools or environments are expected to be used. Additional tools can be discussed on an as needed basis.

2.1.2 What is the expected timeline and deliverable format for key milestones (e.g. interim feasibility reports, final AoA documents)? Should we provide an Integrated Master Schedule with our proposal to illustrate deliverable timing?

Deliverable items don't include feasibility studies and AOA documents on day one - these are tasks required as the situation arises. Can a contractor perform feasiblity studies, AOAs, etc? When the situation arises, the contractor and government rep will collaborate on a timeline that meets the need of the situation.

2.1.2 Will training or knowledge transfer be required for government personnel as part of these tasks (e.g. explaining our analyses or handing off technical models)?

Yes, we would always expect the contractor to provide a sound explanation to their government counteparts or leadership as the analysis will tend to be defended by the government rep.

2.1.2 Are there any incumbent analyses or lessons learned from previous DC3 studies that should inform our approach?

Not specifically

2.1.2 For the “technical services during construction/installation,” will the contractor work on live DC3 networks, or in parallel test environments?

Yes there is a possibility of working on live networks or in parallel test environments.

2.1.2 Could the Government please clarify the following with respect to the AF Form 1067 process and proposed capability modifications:

Block 13 Lead Command: Who is identified as the Lead Command responsible for Block 13 coordination and endorsement? Will that Lead Command serve as the requirements sponsor throughout the entire capability lifecycle?

Certification/Approval Authority: Which organization or MAJCOM will serve as the lead certification or approval authority for the capability change, particularly if it impacts cyber-weapon systems or enterprise services?

System Identification: Will this requirement affect a single, designated weapon system or enterprise capability, or should the contractor consider it part of a broader System Subsystems Specification (SSS) framework?

Program Management Office (PMO): Will the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) serve as the Program Management Office (PMO) for this effort? If not, can the Government identify the appropriate PMO or lead acquisition organization?

AF Form 1067 process can be coordinated with supported IT infrastructure and capability teams.

2.1.3 Can you identify which existing DC3 processes (e.g. resource allocation, enterprise asset management, licensing) are the highest priorities for evaluation or improvement? Are there current pain points or metrics (MTTR, backlog size) guiding this focus?

No, not at this time. Priorities change quickly and being flexible to focus on multiple issues together or independently may unlock or alleviate pain points in other focus areas.

2.1.3 What tools or practices does DC3 currently use for asset and license management? Can we propose improvements or new tools?

DC3 is always open to feedback from team members for efficient and effective ways of managing activities. Asset and license management handled internally.

2.1.3 How will the government define “supportable operational capability” in a transition plan? Are there performance targets or sustainment cost thresholds in the baseline requirements?

Situation dependent.

2.1.3 Can you clarify the expected deliverable format for transition plans? For instance, should they include specific sections on staffing, funding profiles, and schedule for moving to full-scale operations?

No, we look for the contractor to put together an informative and transparent plan.

2.1.3 Should we assume that prototypes will be demonstrated to certain stakeholders (e.g. AFOSI, SAF-IG)? If so, what level of functionality or performance will be expected at each demo milestone?

Situation dependent.

2.1.3 In improving operations and maintenance performance, are there specific benchmark goals (e.g. availability, mean time between failures) that DC3 aims to achieve? How should we measure and propose improvements against them?

Situation dependent. If not identified, the contractor can help create that information.

2.1.4 Who are the intended consumers (e.g. DC3 leadership, AFOSI investigators, DoD analysts)? - Which structured analytic techniques are preferred or mandated

Situation dependent.

2.1.4 For gap identification and collection requirements, what is the current process for submitting and staffing CRs within the IC? Will we task requirements via MC&A (Mission Collection & Analysis) processes, and which agency provides final approval?

Prefer to have the team gain this information once on-site.

2.1.4 How does DC3 define and expect “observable effects” of cyber tools? Situation dependent. These activities/projects are not singular in their space, so answering this may reflect one item vs all within our environment.

2.1.4 Are there specific adversary threat vectors or technologies of interest (e.g.

ICS/OT threats, specific malware families) that our analysis should emphasize?

Prefer to have the team gain this information once on-site.

2.1.4 Will we coordinate with other AF or DoD intel organizations (e.g. 16 AF, ACC, NSA Cyber Center) on products

Yes

2.1.4 What timelines apply for delivering intelligence responses? For example, is “quick look” expected within 24 hours of a request, and are deep dives planned within 30 days?

Situation dependent.

2.1.4 Does DC3 have templates or existing example formats for intelligence products that we should use?

Yes

2.1.5 What are DC3’s current priority R&D focus areas? There are numerous focus areas for DC3, however priorities change quickly.

2.1.5 Will all tasks be TS/SCI or SIPR, or can some work be unclassified? Yes, some work is unclassified.

2.1.5 How will success be measured for R&D support projects? For example, will we be judged on prototype performance, number of demonstrations, or transition to acquisition?

Situation dependent.

2.1.6 What tools or systems are used for scheduling and reporting (e.g. MS Project, JIRA, Confluence, MS Teams)?

There are numerous tools used, depends on the situation and team.

2.1.6 Who are the key stakeholders and governance bodies (e.g. Program Manager, COR, governance boards)? How are they organized and what is the frequency of status review meetings?

Primary stakeholders for this contract are internal DC3 government

2.1.6 What level of documentation is expected for risk management? Will we feed into a DC3 Risk Register or is a contractor-maintained risk log sufficient?

Situation or project dependent. A contractor maintained risk log will still need to government access.

2.1.6 How is quality assurance defined for these projects? Does DC3 have a Quality Management Plan or audit process?

Situation dependent.

2.1.6 How will the contractor coordinate lessons learned and continuous process improvements?

Situation dependent.

6.1.1 Will contractor personnel be permitted to access the Government facility during off-duty hours, weekends, and holidays? Potentially for emergencies and critical needs?

In the event it would require additional approvals and coordination.

6.1.2 Is there a maximum percentage of the FTE on the contract that are allowed to work remotely?

Remote work should be kept to a minimum, possibly 2 days a week. The nature of many activities happens in a cleared space, so remote work should not be expected more than twice a week.